Memory Alpha:Featured article reviews
Reconfirmations without objections Enterprise (NX-01) FA from 2004, haven't read it yet, so I'm not sure if it's still up to snuff. - 21:03, June 8, 2012 (UTC) :Much of the bg info seems to be more suitable for the page. --Defiant 23:12, June 8, 2012 (UTC) :Also, am I right in thinking we consistently should be using the 8 June format (rather than the June 8 format)? --Defiant 23:15, June 8, 2012 (UTC) I've never really been sure why this wiki uses the international dating format when the show uses the American format. The format for the dates is like that on this page because that's the format they used in the show. If anything, the rest of the wiki should change, but I doubt that's going to happen. - 00:03, June 9, 2012 (UTC) :As an editor elsewhere in the world from the self-centered U.S. of A., I'm personally happiest to use the format currently in usage. However, I'm obviously not a consensus, and I do see merit in changing it to the method used most in the show (as you were saying). --Defiant 00:07, June 9, 2012 (UTC) I meant to have ", particularly ENT" at the end of the second sentence in my last post, but for some reason didn't write it. That should make me sound like less of an ass hopefully. Changing the dates wiki wide would require multiple bot runs, several template changes, not to mention just plain old eyes on the page for a few of them. While all that is doable, it would require several people over the course of a few days at least to complete, which is why I doubt anyone would seriously consider it, since there isn't anything particularly wrong with the current system. That said, I do tend to write in universe dates in the American standard though, with real world dates using the international one. - 00:27, June 9, 2012 (UTC) :I'm inclined to oppose this article, due to the lack of bg info and with so many images apparently randomly placed (thereby lending not a lot to the article). --Defiant 15:24, June 10, 2012 (UTC) I don't see anything wrong with the number of images, though the relevance to the text could be improved by finding better ones. As for the bg info, is it just the lack of bg info in general, or do you know of some that isn't currently there? - 15:32, June 10, 2012 (UTC) :The general lack of bg info is what I mean. Also, the relevance of the images is what I find problematic, rather than the quantity of them. I meant, "so many of them are randomly placed," not "there's so many of them." --Defiant 15:38, June 10, 2012 (UTC) :::Comment--I'm a bit undecided on this one...I do not share Defiant's concerns about the imagery, but I do think that some of the text is better situated on the corresponding -page, especially the first three paragraphs of the "Development" chapter--Sennim 11:54, June 14, 2012 (UTC) This article is a bit unique since it covers the ship that was the first of the class, so there is bound to be some overlap between it and the class page. That said, if you're talking about the blurb, the next section could be used. - 12:10, June 14, 2012 (UTC) :I concur that there will necessarily be some overlap, though much of the text in the first section doesn't even refer to the starship (despite the ship apparently being what the page is meant to be about), so I agree with Sennim on this. Maybe it'd be better if we started with a sentence like "After Humanity's first warp 5 engine was created, Humanity was ready to build its first true starship. In 2151, ''Enterprise was completed," then continue as is. --Defiant 12:17, June 14, 2012 (UTC) :::I actually had the main text in mind, but I concur to the overlap. As for the blurb I agree to a partial re-write to have it more pertinent to the ship itself--Sennim 12:46, June 14, 2012 (UTC) I've used the next section for the blurb, but I believe that a brief history, as in one longer than a sentence, of the development of the warp 5 engine is prudent here because this ship was the prototype for the entire class. The fact that the engine was new affected this ship more than any other one, so spending some time on it sounds like the right thing to do here, and breaking warp five wasn't even proven when ''Enterprise was launched. That said, I'm not married to the current wording. - 13:27, June 14, 2012 (UTC) :::No, I'm fine with that with your argument in mind; Perhaps an added note in the fourth paragraph, that Enterprise is the first tangible product of the warp-5 project, hammers home the point--Sennim 14:03, June 14, 2012 (UTC) :I agree that talking about the warp 5 engine is appropriate, as it's the first vessel to have that engine, but I still feel the text could be edited down somewhat, so there's not so much superfluous language. As an example, I think we could remove the fact that work started on the ship, as this can be easily assumed if we just said the next bit – that work was completed in 2151. --Defiant 14:11, June 14, 2012 (UTC) It might be best if you make the changes and them the rest of us "edit it mercilessly" as needed. - 14:24, June 14, 2012 (UTC) :Okay, I've taken a shot at it. (I was actually editing it in such a way when you made the above suggestion; I guess it goes to show that "great minds think alike"! Lol!) --Defiant 14:30, June 14, 2012 (UTC) :::I wonder if the sentence "Thus, Humanity was ready to build its first true starship. In 2151, Enterprise was completed.", isn't a bit too contentious. It does not take into account for example an older design like the , which, while undoubtedly not having the range and endurance of the Enterprise, was still warp-capable and thus, at least in my book, a "true starship", albeit a slower one--Sennim 15:06, June 14, 2012 (UTC) conflict - I've tweaked the wording, mainly to stick with hard dates instead of generalities forced by conflicting info, since there's no need to go into the problems with when warp drive was invented here. - 15:08, June 14, 2012 (UTC) :I've tweaked it further, attempting to account for the efforts that were made at life prolongation during space travel from Earth, and remove some assumption of prior knowledge, re: Cochrane. The use of the word "reasonable" is a bit overly subjective, IMO, similar to the problem with the phrase "true starship". --Defiant 15:20, June 14, 2012 (UTC) "True starship" might be better as "deep space starship" or "long range starship". - 15:29, June 14, 2012 (UTC) :::I tweaked it as a more neutral "warp 5 capable starship", perhaps a bit too prematurely--Sennim 15:31, June 14, 2012 (UTC) :To be more specific about what I mean by irrelevant images, there's 2 in particular – the Enterprise at warp image and the one featuring Enterprise flying above Earth. Also, shouldn't the in-universe info about the picture in Archer's ready room be placed in the in-universe section, rather than the bg info? It would seem to be a more appropriate placement, at least IMO. --Defiant 15:48, June 14, 2012 (UTC) :::Oops, edited as bg-info, before I read your comment--Sennim 16:13, June 14, 2012 (UTC) :::Suggestion for the pics placements; the warp-pic where the launch-pic is now (ties in nicely with all this talk about warp), the launch pic moved down to the Launch section (left and the klingon one to the right); the earth-pic to "After returning home", since this is what the pic is about...Should go a long way to assuage your concerns--Sennim 16:33, June 14, 2012 (UTC) :Thanks for those suggestions. However, the right-and-left method of displaying images looks particularly cluttered. Furthermore, I noticed the Klingon image wasn't really adding anything significant to the article, either, so I opted to remove it. I've also noticed that the page is currently missing info from the fan-favorite episode . --Defiant 17:21, June 14, 2012 (UTC) *'Support'--Well I'm satisfied, so let me be the first one to cast a support-vote--Sennim 14:23, June 15, 2012 (UTC) *'Support'. - 03:02, June 21, 2012 (UTC) :I don't really see how this page is supportable, yet. As I've pointed out, the page is currently incomplete. If we note that a few little areas of the ship were quarantined in , don't you think we should also say something about the fact that the entire ship essentially gets covered in gunk in ? Also, the pages for the bg sources should be created before this article is accepted. --Defiant 08:15, June 21, 2012 (UTC) The number of red links in an article has nothing to do with that article, so those pages do not have to be created for this to remain featured. - 14:54, June 21, 2012 (UTC) :I know that for red links, generally, but during the FA nomination process for the Gorkon article in September last year, there was some complaining that sources quoted from had not been created yet. I agree that this is a valid complaint, since it's not at all difficult to create at least a stub, in most cases. So, while you're technically right, it's probably preferable that info about the cited sources is available (not a hard task, usually). --Defiant 21:42, June 21, 2012 (UTC) :With the "Similitude"-related info now adding to the page's completeness, I'm very happy to also Support the article (a massive thanks for adding that relevant info, Archduk). --Defiant 21:49, June 21, 2012 (UTC) Battle of Wolf 359 FA from 2004, haven't read it yet, so I'm not sure if it's still up to snuff. - 21:03, June 8, 2012 (UTC) * Hold--For the moment (and I DO want this to be featured), I'm missing some info relating to the events leading up to this event (from in respect to the "Prelude section") and on a very personal note, while it has been split off in the past, I personally would like to see the reintegration of Starships at Wolf 359 into the article--Sennim 21:23, June 8, 2012 (UTC) That merge should then be suggested as soon as possible, and this can remain on hold until it is resolved. Just an FYI for everyone though, the order I've been using for bringing these up for reconfirmation is the nomination archive (since the list here is still dictated by when the category was added when it was created), so everyone can check the articles likely to be reconfirmed next. - 22:27, June 8, 2012 (UTC) :Well, I've opened that debate--Sennim 03:09, June 9, 2012 (UTC) :Have addressed IMO the "Neutral zone" notion--Sennim 20:15, June 15, 2012 (UTC) With the merge and discussion now complete, this can continue. - 03:57, June 21, 2012 (UTC) :Agreed, struck the hold note; have in the meantime elaborated on the BG-section--Sennim 09:50, June 22, 2012 (UTC) :I've tried my hand at writing a blurb, but I'm the first to admit that in-universe writing is not my strong suit, so if this is not up to specs, I apologize and by all means, edit it into smithereens--Sennim 10:46, June 22, 2012 (UTC) I did some work on the blurb to try and trim it down a bit, as it was a little long. This one was much harder to summarize than I expected, so good work Sennim. As for the article, I think the "Aftermath" part is lacking some detail, and the legacy part doesn't mention the sidelining of the Enterprise-E during the next Borg incursion. I'll get to those over the next few days if no one else does. - 19:58, June 22, 2012 (UTC) :I like your more tersely reworded blurb...and I'm close to casting a (positive) vote...And btw. I'm not sure if the ''-E's sidelining is pertinent to this article, I thought that was pertinent to , aka the Battle of Sector 001--Sennim 20:41, June 22, 2012 (UTC) ::There's been some good effort put into the "Background information" section. But with respect, the first paragraph has nothing to do with the subject of the article. The Battle of Wolf 359 isn't even mentioned. The info is more relevant to e.g. , and Borg, which have similar notes already.–Cleanse ( talk | ) 06:00, June 23, 2012 (UTC) ::I removed the paragraph.–Cleanse ( talk | ) 04:41, June 24, 2012 (UTC) Battle of Sector 001 FA from 2004, haven't read it yet, so I'm not sure if it's still up to snuff. - 05:21, June 23, 2012 (UTC) *'Support''': makes for a generally enjoyable, enlightening read, IMO. --Defiant 12:51, June 23, 2012 (UTC) Reconfirmations with objections Early reconfirmations